Posted on 04/07/2015 7:09:21 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
You may have heard that the government is forcing businesses not to discriminate. It isn’t. If you chose to run a business, you have to follow the laws. If you don’t, that’s a choice—and you choose to suffer the consequences.
Still, in the wake of the controversy surrounding Indiana’s law, conservatives don’t see it that way. Even potential Republican presidential candidates are getting in on the assertions. Rick Santorum recently said:
If you’re a print shop and you are a gay man, should you be forced to print ‘God Hates Fags’ for the Westboro Baptist Church because they hold those signs up? Should the government—and this is really the case here — should the government force you to do that? This is about the government coming in and saying, “No, we’re going to make you do this.” And this is where I think we just need some space to say let’s have some tolerance, be a two-way street.
There are two problems with Santorum’s reasoning. The first is that a printer doesn’t have to make such signs, under any law, because refusing to do so is not discrimination in any legally prohibited sense. A print shop can also refuse to print a poster that says, for instance, “F*ck Rick Santorum,” either because it disagrees with the language or the sentiment. Both are entirely legally permissible decisions any business can rightfully make.
But let’s say the printer is asked to make a communion sign or a gay wedding sign. In this case—especially in states that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation as well as religion—refusing to print such a sign would indeed be illegal. The government isn’t forcing that business to do anything other than follow the law. Which is what we expect of all businesses, equally.
This issue of government force is a funny one. You could also argue that the government is forcing you to drive below the speed limit or wear a seatbelt in your car. But it’s not. There isn’t a police officer holding a gun to your head literally forcing you to buckle up. In fact, you are 100 percent free to speed and not wear your seatbelt—and simply deal with the consequences if you’re pulled over. Is the threat of the fine for breaking the law amount to “forcing” you to follow the law? No.
And more to the point, the government certainly isn’t forcing you to drive. If you don’t like the speed limit and seatbelt rules, and don’t want to be subject to the consequences of breaking them, then you can not drive. Whether to drive or not is your choice.
This all seems simple when we talk about driving, but somehow a fringe set of rightwing conservatives want us all to believe that hapless business owners are somehow being forced, against their will, to serve pizza to gay people. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you don’t want to serve pizza to gay people, by all means, don’t—which, by the way, is legal in Indiana and 28 other states, but even where it is illegal, you’re still free to do so and deal with the consequences of breaking the law. That, pizza shop owner, is your choice. And if you don’t want to deal with those consequences, well, no one is forcing you to be in the pizza business. You’re free to do something else.
In the wake of the Loving v. Virginia ruling in 1967, Bob Jones University, a Christian college in South Carolina that explicitly denied admissions to black students, maintained its policy against interracial dating and marriage, citing the Bible. So the school suffered the consequences. In 1983, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Internal Revenue Service to revoke Bob Jones University’s tax-exempt status. But the university was still free to continue its discriminatory practices. In fact, while the school did start admitting African-Americans in the 1970s, the ban on interracial dating was only lifted in 2000.
In the United States, private businesses get all kinds of government support—a functional monetary system, police that safeguard private property, roads that help deliver customers and goods, public schools that educate workers, telecommunications infrastructure, legal protections against copyright and patent infringement, tax benefits for business expenses and employee health care, legal shields for owners and more. No one is forcing businesses to take advantage of all those benefits, nor forcing you to start a business to begin with nor forcing you to do so in a state with non-discrimination laws or in the United States to begin with.
Don’t like following the laws that apply to businesses—including serving all customers equally? Then don’t start a business. That’s your choice.
-- Sally Kohn is a columnist and CNN political commentator.
No, it is not.
Academics and their use of language.
We won’t force you to provide that service. We’ll just mash you with a lawsuit and fines if you refuse.
Actually, the threat of, and/or imposition of a fine is force. Dipwit.
According to Wikipedia:
Sally Kohn met her partner, Sarah Hansen, at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil, in 2003. Hansen works as an activist and consultant. Hansen was the Executive Director of the Environmental Grantmakers Association from 1998 to 2005. They have a daughter (aged 5 in 2014), Willa Hansen-Kohn and live in Brooklyn, New York.
And Jews had to follow anti Jewish laws in nazi Germany. If they didn’t, it was their choice to die in the street.......
I wanted to share my thoughts on Indiana, RFPA, and 'Freedom of Conscience,' and specifically the incident regarding the Pizza Establishment:
'Freedom of Conscience' is the foundation to all freedoms we deem essential in this country. You cannot have 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom of assembly' without 'freedom of conscience.'
In the example of the "Memories Pizza' establishment in Indiana, the owner said they would NOT discriminate against ANYONE who wanted to come in and purchase pizza; that is, if someone came in and wanted an immediate item to consume, they would provide it regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
Then, a 'theoretical question' was asked, "Would you cater a Gay Wedding?'
At this point the owner is being asked, at some future date, to participate in a 'Rite' or 'Ceremony' they may disagree with, and as such, they have a right, under their freedom of conscience to not participate.
I was asked once by a friend to be a 'Godparent' - I told the friend I did not share their beliefs and said they would be better served by someone who did share their beliefs. This is the same answer I would give if I owned a 'business establishment' and was asked to involve myself in a 'ceremony' I did not believe in.
Freedom of speech means people are going to say things you don't agree with; Freedom of conscience means people are going to BELIEVE and DO THINGs you don't agree with; But you can't have one without the other. If a person can't act on their beliefs, because you disagree with them, then WE have no freedom and no liberty.
In each case above, as long as they don't harm others in what they believe or do, we need to accommodate the speech and beliefs of those we disagree.
In the case of a Business Establishment refusing to participate in a 'Rite' or 'Ceremony,' NO HARM is done to anyone - there are plenty of pizza shops, florists, cake bakers, etc. to accommodate you if they personally don't want to be involved in your ceremony.
In fact I would argue as artisans, 'cake makers', 'florists', and 'others' need greater freedom (than say the guy that does your laundry) with respect to whether they want to participate in a 'ceremony' - I've always wanted those I've contracted out for weddings to 'feel the vibe' and 'spiritually connect' when they are asked to perform a service. Why even approach someone to involve themselves in a ceremony if they don't want to participate?
If however, you believe (as many seem to be suggesting) the State should have the power to compel someone to act against their conscience, and force them to participate in a 'ceremony' they deem 'religious' and don't believe in, then you're setting the cause of Liberty and Freedom back 500 years; when mobs and lawyers were more than willing to haul citizens before magistrates if they dared to defy laws and teachings over 'freedom of conscience'.
When President Palin and Attorney General Cruz execute the laws enacted by the Tom Cotton and Marsha Blackburn led Congress forcing the Men Seeking Men media to only print stories favorable to Conservatism or "suffer the consequences", I'm sure we won't hear a peep out of Sally Kohn.
The last paragraph about “government support” is a hoot.
So, in countries where people are killed for being gay, or for not being sufficiently Islamic enough ... it’s OK because “it’s following the law”.
Got it.
In other words: If you choose to make a living, you have to follow the laws. If you don't, then die.
+1...
It all comes down to the summary that Chai Feldblum stated -
“gays win, Christians lose”.
(especially the latter)
“If you want to know, Sally Kohn is also a distinguished Vaid Fellow at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute.”
And also, it would seem, a moron.
“Obey the law (no matter how reprehensible the law is) or suffer the consequences.”
Invites direct action from those who love liberty.
Say, Sally Kohn, wasn't slavery "The Law" at one time?
It is my choice to ignore what this bull-dyke says.
So in other words, according to very liberal “logic,” the government isn’t forcing you to do anything.. But if you don’t do it, you should expect the government to punish you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
